I'm a newbie to Haskell, I have a problem. I need to write a function that splits a list into a list of lists everywhere a 'separation' appears.
I will try to help you develop the understanding of how to develop functions that work on lists via recursion. It is helpful to learn how to do it first in a 'low-level' way so you can understand better what's happening in the 'high-level' ways that are more common in real code.
First, you must think about the nature of the type of data that you want to work with. The list is in some sense the canonical example of a recursively-defined type in Haskell: a list is either the empty list [] or it is some list element a combined with a list via a : list. Those are the only two possibilities. We call the empty list the base case because it is the one that does not refer to itself in its definition. If there were no base case, recursion would never "bottom out" and would continue indefinitely!
The fact that there are two cases in the definition of a list means that you must consider two cases in the definition of a function that works with lists. The canonical way to consider multiple cases in Haskell is pattern matching. Haskell syntax provides a number of ways to do pattern matching, but I'll just use the basic case expression for now:
case xs of
[] -> ...
x:xs' -> ...
Those are the two cases one must consider for a list. The first matches the literal empty list constructor; the second matches the element-adding constructor : and also binds two variables, x and xs', to the first element in the list and the sublist containing the rest of the elements.
If your function was passed a list that matches the first case, then you know that either the initial list was empty or that you have completed the recursion on the list all the way past its last element. Either way, there is no more list to process; you are either finished (if your calls were tail-recursive) or you need to pass the basic element of your answer construction back to the function that called this one (by returning it). In the case that your answer will be a list, the basic element will usually be the empty list again [].
If your function was passed a list that matches the second case, then you know that it was passed a non-empty list, and furthermore you have a couple of new variables bound to useful values. Based on these variables, you need to decide two things:
How do I do one step of my algorithm on that one element, assuming I have the correct answer from performing it on the rest of the list?
How do I combine the results of that one step with the results of performing it on the rest of the list?
Once you've figured the answers to those questions, you need to construct an expression that combines them; getting the answer for the rest of the list is just a matter of invoking the recursive call on the rest of the list, and then you need to perform the step for the first element and the combining.
Here's a simple example that finds the length of a list
listLength :: [a] -> Int
listLength as =
case as of
[] -> 0 -- The empty list has a length of 0
a:as' -> 1 + listlength as' -- If not empty, the length is one more than the
-- length of the rest of the list
Here's another example that removes matching elements from a list
listFilter :: Int -> [Int] -> Int
listFilter x ns =
case ns of
[] -> [] -- base element to build the answer on
n:ns' -> if n == x
then listFilter x ns' -- don't include n in the result list
else n : (listFilter x ns') -- include n in the result list
Now, the question you asked is a little bit more difficult, as it involves a secondary 'list matching' recursion to identify the separator within the basic recursion on the list. It is sometimes helpful to add extra parameters to your recursive function in order to hold extra information about where you are at in the problem. It's also possible to pattern match on two parameters at the same time by putting them in a tuple:
case (xs, ys) of
([] , [] ) -> ...
(x:xs', [] ) -> ...
([] , y:ys') -> ...
(x:xs', y:ys') -> ...
Hopefully these hints will help you to make some progress on your problem!
Let's see if the problem can be reduced in a obvious way.
Suppose splitList is called with xs to split and ys as the separator. If xs is empty, the problem is the smallest, so what's the answer to that problem? It is important to have the right answer here, because the inductive solution depends on this decision. But we can make this decision later.
Ok, so for problem to be reducable, the list xs is not empty. So, it has at least a head element h and the smaller problem t, the tail of the list: you can match xs#(h:t). How to obtain the solution to the smaller problem? Well, splitList can solve that problem by the definition of the function. So now the trick is to figure out how to build the solution for bigger problem (h:t), when we know the solution to the smaller problem zs=splitList t ys. Here we know that zs is the list of lists, [[a]], and because t may have been the smallest problem, zs may well be the solution to the smallest problem. So, whatever you do with zs, it must be valid even for the solution to the smallest problem.
splitList [] ys = ... -- some constant is the solution to the smallest problem
splitList xs#(h:t) ys = let zs = splitList t ys
in ... -- build a solution to (h:t) from solution to t
I don't know how to test it. Anybody tells me how to write a function to a .hs file and use winGHCi to run this function?
WinGHCi automatically associates with .hs files so just double-click on the file and ghci should start up. After making some changes to the file using your favourite editor you can write use the :r command in ghci to reload the file.
To test the program after fixing typos, type-errors, and ensuring correct indentation, try calling functions you have defined with different inputs (or use QuickCheck). Note Maybe is defined as Just x or Nothing. You can use fromMaybe to extract x (and provide default value for the Nothing case).
Also try to make sure that pattern matching is exhaustive.
Related
i am a beginner in ocaml and I am stuck in my project.
I would like to count the number of elements of a list contained in a list.
Then test if the list contains odd or even lists.
let listoflists = [[1;2] ; [3;4;5;6] ; [7;8;9]]
output
l1 = even
l2 = even
l3 = odd
The problem is that :
List.tl listoflists
Gives the length of the rest of the list
so 2
-> how can I calculate the length of the lists one by one ?
-> Or how could I get the lists and put them one by one in a variable ?
for the odd/even function, I have already done it !
Tell me if I'm not clear
and thank you for your help .
Unfortunately it's not really possible to help you very much because your question is unclear. Since this is obviously a homework problem I'll just make a few comments.
Since you talk about putting values in variables you seem to have some programming experience. But you should know that OCaml code tends to work with immutable variables and values, which means you have to look at things differently. You can have variables, but they will usually be represented as function parameters (which indeed take different values at different times).
If you have no experience at all with OCaml it is probably worth working through a tutorial. The OCaml.org website recommends the first 6 chapters of the OCaml manual here. In the long run this will probably get you up to speed faster than asking questions here.
You ask how to do a calculation on each list in a list of lists. But you don't say what the answer is supposed to look like. If you want separate answers, one for each sublist, the function to use is List.map. If instead you want one cumulative answer calculated from all the sublists, you want a fold function (like List.fold_left).
You say that List.tl calculates the length of a list, or at least that's what you seem to be saying. But of course that's not the case, List.tl returns all but the first element of a list. The length of a list is calculated by List.length.
If you give a clearer definition of your problem and particularly the desired output you will get better help here.
Use List.iter f xs to apply function f to each element of the list xs.
Use List.length to compute the length of each list.
Even numbers are integrally divisible by two, so if you divide an even number by two the remainder will be zero. Use the mod operator to get the remainder of the division. Alternatively, you can rely on the fact that in the binary representation the odd numbers always end with 1 so you can use land (logical and) to test the least significant bit.
If you need to refer to the position of the list element, use List.iteri f xs. The List.iteri function will apply f to two arguments, the first will be the position of the element (starting from 0) and the second will be the element itself.
I'm trying to create a list of unique by appending to a list, but I'm getting this error.
Error: This expression has type 'a list
but an expression was expected of type unit
in_list is a boolean function that checks whether the value is in the list.
if(in_list x seen_list) then print_string("Already found") else seen_list#x in
List.iter uniq check_list;;
It seems like there must be some small syntactic error I need to fix for the append function. Suggestions?
TL;DR: Lists are immutable in OCaml
According to your code, you seem to believe that lists are mutable in OCaml, and they are not. Hence seen_list#x compute a new list but does not change seen_list.
You could change your code to
let uniq seen_list x =
if in_list x seen_list then
(Printf.printf: "uniq: %d: Already seen.\n" x; seen_list)
else x :: seen_list
in
List.fold_left uniq [] check_list
The uniq function maps a list of integers to a list of integers without repetitions, logging the entries it skips.
This code is obviously intended to be learning material, I guess, nevertheless you should be aware that it most likely implements a Shlemiel the painter's algorithm.
This is a type error, not a syntactic error.
An OCaml function must always return a result of the same type. Right now, when the item is in the list your function tries to return a different type than if the item is not in the list.
Specifically, when the item is already there your function calls print_string, which returns (). This is called unit, and is a placeholder representing no interesting value. When the item isn't already there, your function returns a value of type 'a list. Almost certainly what you need to do is to return a list in all cases.
It's hard to say more without seeing more of your code, but the most usual way to handle this situation is to return the old list when the item is already there and a new, longer list when the item isn't already there.
Update
There are many things to fix in this code, but that's the point of the exercise I assume.
Your next problem seems to be that List.iter is an imperative function, i.e., it wants to do something rather than produce a result. Hence the function that it iterates over the list should return unit (described above). You're using the function uniq instead, which returns a list.
If you want to use a higher-order function like List.iter, which is excellent OCaml style, you will need to use a fold (List.fold_left or List.fold_right), whose purpose is to accumulate a result.
How can I build a predicate in prolog that receives a number and a list, I must insert the number in the list by the tail
I tried inserting the number in the list by the head: insert(H,[P|Q],[H,P|Q]). and it works, but how can I do it by the tail?
Simply use append/3 like this:
?- append([a,b,c,d],[x],List).
List = [a,b,c,d,x].
Inserting at the tail can be done with a two-part recursive rule:
When the list is empty, unify the result to a single-element list with the item being inserted
When the list is not empty, unify the result to a head followed by the result of inserting into the tail of a tail.
English description is much longer than its Prolog equivalent:
ins_tail([], N, [N]).
ins_tail([H|T], N, [H|R]) :- ins_tail(T, N, R).
Demo.
Nobody talked about difference lists yet.
Difference lists
Difference lists are denoted L-E, which is just a convenient notation for a couple made of a list L whose last cons-cell has E for its tail:
L = [ V1, ..., Vn | E]
The empty difference list is E-E, with E a variable. You unify E whenever you want to refine the list.
For example, if you want to add an element X, you can unify as follows:
E = [X|F]
And then, L-F is the new list. Likewise, you can append lists in constant time. If you unify F with a "normal" list, in particular [], you close your open-ended list. During all operations, you retain a reference to the whole list through L. Of course, you can still add elements in front of L with the ususal [W1, ..., Wm |L]-E notation.
Whether or not you need difference lists is another question. They are intereseting if adding an element at the end is effectively a common operation for you and if you are manipulating large lists.
Definite clause grammars
DCG are a convenient way of writing grammar rules in Prolog. They are typically implemented as reader macros, translating --> forms into actual predicates. Since the purpose of grammars is to build structures during parsing (a.k.a. productions), the translation to actual predicates involves difference lists. So, even though both concepts are theoretically unrelated, difference lists are generally the building material for DCGs.
The example on wikipedia starts with:
sentence --> noun_phrase, verb_phrase.
... which gets translated as:
sentence(S1,S3) :- noun_phrase(S1,S2), verb_phrase(S2,S3).
A lot of "plumbing" is provided by the syntax (a little like monads). The object being "built" by sentence/2 is S1, which is built from different parts joined together by the predicates. S1 is passed down to noun_phrase, which builds/extends it as necessary and "returns" S2, which can be seen as "whatever extends S1". This value is passed to verb_phrase which updates it and gives S3, a.k.a. whatever extends S2. S3 is an argument of sentence, because it is also "whatever extends S1", given the rule we have. But, this is Prolog, so S1, S2 and S3 are not necessarly inputs or outputs, they are unified during the whole process, during which backtracking takes place too (you can parse ambiguous grammars). They are eventually unified with lists.
Difference lists come to play when we encounter lists on the right-hand side of the arrow:
det --> [the].
The above rule is translated as:
det([the|X], X).
That means that det/2 unifies its first argument with an open-ended list which tail is X; other rules will unify X. Generally, you find epsilon rules which are associated with [].
All the above is done with macros, and a typical error is to try to call an auxiliary predicate on your data, which fails because the transformation add two arguments (a call to helper(X) is in fact a call to helper(X,V,W)). You must enclose actual bodies between braces { ... } to avoid treating prediates as rules.
Here is an another option.
insert(N,[],[N]).
insert(N,[H|T],[H|Q]) :- conc([H|T],[N],[H|Q]).
conc([],L,L).
conc([H|T],L,[H|Q]) :- conc(T,L,Q).
I'm having some (or a lot of) trouble with lists of lists in prolog.
So I have a list of numbers, say [5,6,1,3] as input.
The output should be [[5,25],[6,36],[1,1],[3,9]].
I already have a predicate that 'return's the 2 item lists (keep in mind that I'll have to change the get_squared_pair function to get some other relevant value):
get_squared_pair(Number, Result) :-
get_squared_value(Number, SquareValue),
Result = [Number, SquareValue].
get_squared_value(Number, Result) :-
Result is Number * Number.
Until here it's pretty logical. Now I need a predicate that recursively iterates though a list, adds the squared pair to a new list, and then returns this lists of lists. What I have right now is:
return_list([], 0).
return_list([Head | Tail], Result) :-
get_squared_pair(Head, Add),
append(Add,Result),
return_list(Tail, Result).
This doesn't work for a number of reasons, and it's mostly because I can't seem to figure out how the recursion actually works with lists, much less lists of lists. Also it's currently running in the wrong order which doesn't help.
I understand this might be a bit vague but I've tried googling my way out of this one but can't seem to translate what I find into my own problem very well.
Any help would be much appreciated!
Let's look at your get_squared_pair/2 first. Although it's working, it can be tidied up a bit which will also help understand how Prolog works. The primary mechanism of Prolog is unification, which is not the same as assignment which occurs in other languages. In unification, Prolog examines two terms and attempts to unify them by instantiating variables in one or both of the terms to make them match. There are some predicates in Prolog, like is/2 which are used to evaluate expressions in one argument, and then unify the first argument with that result.
Your first predicate, then, which you have written as:
get_squared_pair(Number, Result) :-
get_squared_value(Number, SquareValue),
Result = [Number, SquareValue].
get_squared_value(Number, Result) :-
Result is Number * Number.
Can be simplified in two ways. First, you can consolidate the get_squared_value/2 since it's just one line and doesn't really need its own predicate. And we'll rename the predicate so it's not imperative.
square_pair(Number, Square) :-
S is Number * Number, % Square the number
Square = [Number, S]. % Unify Square with the pair
Prolog can unify terms in the head of the clause, so you can avoid the redundant unification. So this is all you need:
square_pair(Number, [Number, Square]) :-
Square is Number * Number.
On to the main predicate, return_list/2. First, we'll rename this predicate to square_pairs. When doing recursion with lists, the most common pattern is to continue reducing a list until it is empty, and then a base case handles the empty list. Your implementation does this, but the base case is a little confused since the 2nd argument is an integer rather than a list:
square_pairs([], 0).
This really should be:
square_pairs([], []).
Your main predicate clause isn't making correct use of append/2. There are two forms of append in SWI Prolog: append/2 and append/3. You can look up what these do in the SWI Prolog online documentation. I can tell you that, in Prolog, you cannot change the value of a variable within a predicate clause once it's been instantiated except through backtracking. For example, look at the following sequence that might be in a predicate clause:
X = a, % Unify X with the atom 'a'
X = b, % Unify X with the atom 'b'
In this case, the second expression will always fail because X is already unified and cannot be unified again. However, if I have this:
foo(X), % Call foo, which unifies X with a value that makes 'foo' succeed
bar(X, Y), % Call bar, which might fail based upon the value of 'X'
In the above case, if bar(X, Y) fails, then Prolog will backtrack to the foo(X) call and seek another value of X which makes foo(X) succeed. If it finds one, then it will call bar(X, Y) again with the new value of X, and so on.
So append(Add, Result) does not append Add to Result yielding a new value for Result. In fact, append with two arguments says that the second list argument is the concatenation of all the elements of the first list, assuming the first argument is a list of lists, so the definition of append/2 doesn't match anyway.
When thinking about your recursion, realize that the argument lists are in one-to-one correspondence with each other. The head of the result list is the "square pair" for the head of the list in the first argument. Then, recursively, the tail of the 2nd argument is a list of the square pairs for the tail of the first argument. You just need to express that in Prolog. We can also use the technique I described above for unification within the head of the clause.
square_pairs([Head | Tail], [SqPair | SqTail]) :-
square_pair(Head, SqPair),
square_pairs(Tail, SqTail).
square_pairs([], []).
Now there's another simplification we can do, which is eliminate the square_pair/2 auxiliary predicate completely:
square_pairs([Head | Tail], [[Head, SqHead] | SqTail]) :-
SqHead is Head * Head,
square_pairs(Tail, SqTail).
square_pairs([], []).
There's a handy predicate in Prolog called maplist which can be used for defining a relationship which runs parallel between two lists, which is the scenario we have here. We can bring back the square_pair/2 predicate and use maplist:
square_pairs(Numbers, SquarePairs) :-
maplist(square_pair, Numbers, SquarePairs).
So you want to turn your list into another, such that each element (a number) is turned into a two-element list, the number and its square.
All you need to do is to tell that to Prolog. First, the second one:
turn_into_two(Num, [A,B]):-
what is A?
A is Num,
what is B? We just tell it to Prolog, too:
B is ... * ... .
Now, on to our list. A list [A|B] in Prolog consists of its head element A, and its tail B - unless it's an empty list [] of course. It doesn't matter what the list's elements are; a list is a list.
We need to account for all cases, or else we're not talking about lists but something else:
turn_list([], Res):-
so what is our result in case the list was empty? It should be empty as well, right?
Res = ... .
in the other case,
turn_list([A|B], Res):-
our result won't be empty, so it'll have its head and tail, correct?
Res = [C|D],
next we say what we know about the heads: the input list's head turns into that two elements list we've described above, right?
turn_into_two(A,C),
and then we say our piece about the tails. But what do we know about the tails? We know that one is the result of the conversion of the other, just as the whole list is:
turn_list( ... , ...) .
And that's it. Incidentally, what we've described, follows the paradigm of mapping. We could have used any other predicate in place of turn_into_two/2, and it would get called for each of the elements of the input list together with the corresponding element from the resulting list.
I just start learning haskell and pattern matching. I just don't understand how it implemented, is the [] and (x:_) evaluates to the different type and the function implementations for this pattern recognized because of polymorphism, or I just wrong and there is another technique used.
head' :: [a] -> a
head' [] = error "Can't call head on an empty list, dummy!"
head' (x:_) = x
Or lets consider this pattern matching function:
tell :: (Show a) => [a] -> String
tell [] = "The list is empty"
tell (x:[]) = "The list has one element: " ++ show x
tell (x:y:[]) = "The list has two elements: " ++ show x ++ " and " ++ show y
tell (x:y:_) = "This list is long. The first two elements are: " ++ show x ++ " and " ++ show y
I think I wrong because each list with different number of elements can't have deferent type. Can you explain me how haskell knows which pattern is correct for some function implementation? I understand how it works logically but not deep. Explain it to me please.
There's a bit of a level of indirection between the syntax in Haskell and the implementation at runtime. The list syntax that you see in most source is actually a bit of sugar for what is actually a fairly regular data type. The following two lines are equivalent:
data List a = Nil | Cons a (List a)
data [a] = [] | a : [a] -- pseudocode
So when you type in [a,b,c] this translates into the internal representation as (a : (b : (c : []))).
The pattern matching you'll see at the top level bindings in are also a bit of syntactic sugar ( sans some minor details ) for case statements which deconstruct the data types onto the right hand side of the case of the pattern match. The _ symbol is a builtin for the wildcard pattern which matches any expression ( so long as the pattern is well-typed ) but does add a variable to the RHS scope.
head :: [a] -> a
head x = case x of
(a : _) -> a
I think I wrong because each list with different number of elements can't have deferent type. Can you explain me how haskell knows which pattern is correct for some function implementation?
So to answer your question [] and (x:_) are both of the same type (namely [a] or List a in our example above). The list datatype is also recursive so all recursive combinations of Cons'ing values of type a have the same type, namely [a].
When the compiler typechecks the case statement it runs along each of the LHS columns and ensures that all the types are equivalent or can be made equivalent using a process called unification. The same is done on the right hand side of the cases.
Haskell "knows" which pattern is correct by trying each branch sequentially and unpacking the matched value to see if it has the same number of cons elements as the pattern and then proceeding to the branch which does, or failing with a pattern match error if none match. The same process is done for any pattern matching on data types, not just lists.
There are two separate sets of checks:
in compile time (before the program is run) the compiler simply checks that the types of the cases conform to the function's signature and that the calls to the function conform to the function's signature.
In runtime, when we have access to the actual input, a similar, but different, set of checks is executed: these checks take the * actual* input (not its type) at hand and determine which of the cases matches it.
So, to answer your question: the decision is made in compile time where we have not only the type but also the actual value.